Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

Guh-nuu

I agree with giving credit where credit is due, but isn't it a given that GNU stuff is wrapped around Linux? I like the little bit of history at the beginning of Linux books and in the FAQs of sites, but isn't calling it 'GNU/Linux' everywhere a bit redundant?

Same point with recognizing the idealistic goal of "spreading freedom and cooperation".

All I knew in the beginning was that "Linux" was gratis. I knew you could play with the source code as well, but that didn't really mean anything to me. I didn't know GNU from Linux. Funny that. Only when I began researching for my book did I discover the "freedom" bit. Perhaps more emphasis on GNU would have helped me understand that Linux was not merely gratis, but libre as well. I cannot say that I would have understood any of this in depth if I hadn't set out to write a book.

It was when I first learned about "GNU" that has really sparked my enthusiasm for Free Software, not just "Linux". When I heard about "Linux" before the only appeal of it was in my curiosity (you could say the "geek in me") about that "experts operating system", but that pales compared to what I felt about Free Software once I learned about the GNU Project and the Free Software philosophy. It was the energy that I needed to become a Free Software and GNU/Linux advocate and user.

In that email discussion grouch has indeed made some excellent points and I can only fully agree; the GNU Project deserves the credit, GNU philosophy on which the power of FOSS stands must spread and hence the operating system deserves to be called GNU/Linux.

I agree with giving GNU credit, but I don't use GNU/Linux all the time. When I write about a specific distro I usually use whatever the converion of that distro is. When I write about the system - not a specific distro - then I usually write GNU/Linux, but I speak "Linux". Speaking "GNU/Linux" breaks the flow of a spoken language too much, but for writing it doesn't matter one bit.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that I am asking for trouble for posting this, but...

I deal everyday with Suits, and they do not know about nor care about 'GNU'. The tools that the Free Software Foundation have given to, what I call "Linux", are not something that the average person cares about. What Suit knows about 'bash', 'emacs', 'gcc', or any other parts of the GNU System, except maybe Gnome. Linux doesn't even mean the 'kernel' to them. For that one reason, among others, I do not refer to "Linux" as "GNU/Linux".

There are TOO MANY Other people and companies that have given SO MUCH to this O/S, besides the FSF. Is it fair to exclude them from the name, just to give the FSF head billing?

When the FSF releases an O/S using HURD as the Kernel, and bundled with the rest of the GNU system, it would be appropriate to call it the GNU O/S.

If we want to be accurate, since the GNU System had to be programmed, and tested on another kernel, since Hurd did not exist, (Probably BSD, although I don't know for sure.) why shouldn't it be called, "UNIX/GNU/Linux", or "BSD/GNU/Linux". Without UNIX, we would never have had what the FSF have given us, nor would we have the Linux kernel, and the name "Linus" would only mean a cartoon character to many of us. ;^) (No offense, Linus T.!) ;^)

Let's just call it Linux, and move on to more important things, such as burying SCO, six feet under, opening doors to everyone, and closing all our "windows"! I know I will feel the wrath from RMS, but I stand by what I have said. IMHO

The FSF did all the hard work. Then Linus comes along and writes one little package, the Linux kernel, and gets all the credit. It's not fair. When The HURD, started in 1990, is finished, the FSF will eat Linus' lunch. Just wait!

"I deal everyday with Suits, and they do not know about nor care about 'GNU'. "

I guess that's why Sony included several printed pages of the GPL with my tv and makes the source available for download. It also explains why IBM is using the GPL in their case against SCOG. Silly suits just never heard of GNU.

"The FSF did all the hard work. Then Linus comes along and writes one little package, the Linux kernel, and gets all the credit. It's not fair. When The HURD, started in 1990, is finished, the FSF will eat Linus' lunch. Just wait!"

Quoting:
Welcome to the GNU Project web server. The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX like operating system which is free software: the GNU system (GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”; it is pronounced guh-noo, like canoe). Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as “Linux”, they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.

Since the subject is GNU, rather than HURD, I think 1984 is the appropriate date to consider.

Grouch: Walk into a small business (1-100), attempting to convince them (Non IT Business People) to switch from a M$ based data center to a Linux based datacenter, and have to explain what a recursive acronym is, what GNU represents, and why it is SO important that they always use a name that most can't even pronounce. OR Walk in and use the term "Linux" and concentrate on the Features, Secutiry, and TOC, and ACTUALLY make a sale, rather than be treated like some geeky fanatic!!!

I live in the REAL world, and know my market! Yes, I'm glad Sony knows about the GPL, (Along with TiVo, Linksys, and others) and I am an active member of Groklaw, and have been following to SCO foolishness since the begining.

"""Walk into a small business (1-100), attempting to convince them (Non IT Business People) to switch from a M$ based data center to a Linux based datacenter, and have to explain what a recursive acronym is, what GNU represents, and why it is SO important that they always use a name that most can't even pronounce. OR Walk in and use the term "Linux" and concentrate on the Features, Secutiry, and TOC, and ACTUALLY make a sale, rather than be treated like some geeky fanatic!!!"""

rstanley,

I sooooooo hear you on that one. The FOSS community shoots itself in the foot all the time with names like GNU/Linux, gKrellM, AMaViS, and Podfuk. (Yes, that last one is a real project!)

Remember a while back when people were *seriously* proposing that we call Linux "LiGnuX"? (That way Linux, GNU, and XFree86 all get credit. Isn't that wonderful!)

It's insane. It does not inspire customer confidence. And it is totally counterproductive.

rstanley: >"Walk into a small business (1-100), attempting to convince them (Non IT Business People) to switch from a M$ based data center to a Linux based datacenter, and have to explain what a recursive acronym is, what GNU represents, and why it is SO important that they always use a name that most can't even pronounce."

Please show me where I insisted on such actions.

The importance of GNU is its protection of users, specifically, users' freedoms with respect to software.

I refer you to sander's comment above, which is very sensible, IMO:

Quoting:
I agree with giving GNU credit, but I don't use GNU/Linux all the time. When I write about a specific distro I usually use whatever the converion of that distro is. When I write about the system - not a specific distro - then I usually write GNU/Linux, but I speak "Linux". Speaking "GNU/Linux" breaks the flow of a spoken language too much, but for writing it doesn't matter one bit.

In a written proposal to a business it would be advantageous to include the term "GNU/Linux", if for no other reason than to lead into discussing how the GPL protects that business, as a user, from consequences arising from dependency on a single vendor. A discussion with a CEO, in person, may or may not involve a summary of the history of how the operating system evolved, depending on the person you're talking to and the time they have for questions and answers.

In my somewhat limited experience (sole proprietorships only, in face-to-face meetings), the owner always wanted to know how MS gets away with exorbitant fees if there is a free system which can handle the business's needs. Explaining this requires a summary of the evolution of free software in general and GPL'd software in particular.

Quoting:I sooooooo hear you on that one. The FOSS community shoots itself in the foot all the time with names like GNU/Linux, gKrellM, AMaViS, and Podfuk. (Yes, that last one is a real project!)

Remember a while back when people were *seriously* proposing that we call Linux "LiGnuX"? (That way Linux, GNU, and XFree86 all get credit. Isn't that wonderful!)

It's insane. It does not inspire customer confidence. And it is totally counterproductive.

And the names like "Google", "YouTube", "Yahoo" or "Flickr" are any better? Who is to decide what kind of name sounds cool and sexy anyway? It's a subjective thing anyway, and the biggest reason why some, even silly names, start sounding so cool are because alot of money has been spilled into brainwashing people to start liking the name.

That said, any name, including "GNU", gKrellM, AMaViS and even podfuk can be made to appear trendy and cool, if you give it some marketing twist. Some people actually already like them. Ask my sister, she recently told me that one of the things she likes about GNU/Linux world is funny names which sound cool and different than usual - she is 16 years old!

rstanley:

Quoting:
"Silly suits just never heard of GNU."

Well teach them then! The insistance on calling GNU/Linux properly is not just about giving credit where credit is due. There is an even more important reason; it rightfully associates it with the philosophy for which GNU Project has been started in the first place, philosophy which is also at the root cause of all the benefits that GNU/Linux provides those same IT people with and which many of those suits are starting to see.

If suits don't yet know of GNU then that is just regrettable because then they probably see it as just an exploatable resource rather than a cooperative community working in freedom, in a truly free market within the realm of software industry.

> Since the subject is GNU, rather than HURD, I think 1984 is the appropriate date to consider.

Actually, I was going use 1984, but then, since the point I'm making is that the FSF has never been able to come up with a satisfactory kernel, I looked up the start date for the HURD. The intent was to be as fair as possible to the FSF. I didn't want to imply that they had a 7 year head start on Linus' project and still haven't come up with an acceptable kernel after 22 years of trying, when the reality is that they only had a 1 year head start on Linus and have not been able to come up with an acceptable kernel after only 16 years of trying.

Still, it kinda takes the wind out of the sails of that oft-used FSF argument that Linux is just one package out of many.

>Nice distortion of reality just for the purpose of sneering. Linus used GNU in the creation of his kernel. After thinking about it, he then adopted GNU's GPL.

It seemed only fair given GNU-heads' propensity to do precisely the same thing with regard to Linus's contributions.

Linus's contribution of the Linux kernel was no small thing. For that matter, Linus's personal leadership of Linux from geek oddity to mainstream powerhouse is no small thing, either. In that regard, his "insignificant" contribution eclipses anything the GNU folks have done. Without Linux, GNU would be nowhere.

Which in no way denigrates the nice little set of tools they've developed. They've obviously done a good job there, or Linux wouldn't rely on them.

>Explaining this requires a summary of the evolution of free software in general and GPL'd software in particular.

Much as I appreciate the goals of the Open Source Initiative -- to be a marketing tactic for free software -- I believe they went down the wrong path.

The OSI guys performed a major service by making it clear that you can love, use, and profit from free software without wearing sandals, growing a beard, or memorizing the Communist Manifesto. From the standpoint of correcting perceptions, OSI has done a great job.

But...as it turns out...

The more I have worked in companies that use -- or should use -- free software, I realize that open source is not the major draw. Programmers might be amazed how few people really want to crack open the source code of their tools.

What really helps businesses is the freedom, not to mention the ability to use things gratis. There is no free lunch in business. You pay for everything. Paying for support? Fine. Doing it yourself? You've got to pay the employees. But free as in gratis matters when you need to re-configure, do disaster recovery, pilot programs, any number of things where you would rather operate according to your business needs instead of license restrictions. Free as in freedom matters because --well -- exactly the same thing.

Whaddya know? Freedom for suits and freedom for "hippies" ain't so different after all.

"""Well teach them then! The insistance on calling GNU/Linux properly is not just about giving credit where credit is due. There is an even more important reason; it rightfully associates it with the philosophy for which GNU Project has been started in the first place, philosophy which is also at the root cause of all the benefits that GNU/Linux provides those same IT people with and which many of those suits are starting to see."""

There are times that I touch on the matter. Universally, my customers' response is to change the subject, thereby letting me know that they don't really care about all that philosophical, ivory tower stuff. They care about the nuts and bolts of whether it can do what they need. I can't say as I blame them, either.

Quoting:
Linus's contribution of the Linux kernel was no small thing. For that matter, Linus's personal leadership of Linux from geek oddity to mainstream powerhouse is no small thing, either. In that regard, his "insignificant" contribution eclipses anything the GNU folks have done. Without Linux, GNU would be nowhere.

I agree that Linus's contribution was quite significant, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it eclipsed anything GNU folks have done. It is still GNU GPL that was the "silent force" which has enabled the Linus to do what he did. GPL, in a sense, just works. I'd say that the credit should in full respect go both ways and the name GNU/Linux does that aptly.

Quoting:
(...)
Whaddya know? Freedom for suits and freedom for "hippies" ain't so different after all.

Well said that (and above). Just goes to show that the whole open source split up might not have been needed afterall. Actually, I do believe so. Today, it is practically FSF that does all the work at advocating and defending Free Software, legally, practically and philosophically. Just the comparative look at the FSF.org and OpenSource.org websites should tell you everything.

I'd say that the only thing left living of the whole "open source" split up is a formal organization (the OSI) and the increasingly vague buzzword.

"""They've obviously done a good job there, or Linux wouldn't rely on them."""

OSS projects tend to use whatever is available. Just look at the moaning about autotools. In a community where sometimes it seems that no two people ever agree on anything, the agreement that autotools sucks is more or less universal. It seems that everyone hates it, but most everyone still uses it.

Then again, you are referring specifically to the Linux kernel. And when Linus decides that some needed code is truly inferior, he has a history of tossing out the 5, 10, or 20 years of work that some group has done, and writing up something better on an evening that he happens to have some free time.

I've noted a lot of complaining about gcc on LKML over the years. But I suppose if he thought gcc was truly inferior, he'd write something better. However, compilers are hard to write, and even harder to get right. It might even take him the better part of a week.

> It is still GNU GPL that was the "silent force" which has enabled the Linus to do what he did. GPL

I don't buy that for a minute. The GPL was another good choice of tools, but Linus did what he did because he is who he is and the time was what it was.
Last I looked, lots of free software projects have done quite nicely for themselves without the GPL.

>, in a sense, just works. I'd say that the credit should in full respect go both ways and the name GNU/Linux does that aptly.

Hmmm. By that logic, I suppose we should call certain other operating systems GNU/BSD. Sorry, but I can't even make that parse.

Quoting:Last I looked, lots of free software projects have done quite nicely for themselves without the GPL.

I have doubts that Linux kernel would do as good as it did if it wasn't under GPL. Those other projects aren't Linux.

Quoting:
Hmmm. By that logic, I suppose we should call certain other operating systems GNU/BSD. Sorry, but I can't even make that parse.

Parse what? I am basically with the article grouch wrote here. If you can't parse that then fine. It is ultimately your decision what you will call it. I will call it GNU/Linux for the reasons stated. I believe it may better help the Free Software cause for anyone else to do so too, but if you wont.. so be it.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]